It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
I quite agree. In fact, it's a storyline that runs through almost all the Fleming novels, where Bond embarks on a seemingly simple case which unravels into a much larger plot.
On another note, Thunderball may be seen as cliche now because its a group using nuclear weapons to hold the world hostage, which has been done over and over and over again in film these days. However, when you stop to consider that it was the first film to do so on such a successful scale, than it doesn't seem so unoriginal...
B-)
This is not the point,it's how they go about. I don't think anyone is criticising the plot and scheme which is great, but the execution. Somehow it seems less like the sum of its parts, which are in parts simply great. The Bahamas and the sea are as beautiful as it gets, domino and Fiona are tremendously Hot cookies, with Fiona also being one of the very very few interesting and dangerous villainess' in the franchise. Still it somehow drags, I can't help it.
Overall it is a well executed movie that tells its story at a more enjoyable pace than actioners these days do, a relaxing and enjoyable movie to see with enough action to keep it fun and Connery makes it look cool too.
It's the opposite of QoS.
I actually think the plot of QOS is one of its strong points. Its premisse at least. it is the opposite of TB in another way: TB has a simple scheme, while QOS has a complex one. But both belong to a Bond movie.
THIS! BIG WAY!!!
(I still want one)
Personally I'd say no. Most people who enjoy it (like me) acknowledge it has its flaws and is perhaps weaker than the three films that came before it.
But Fleming succeeded in creating a new genre, another world, it's not just the plots to be fair.
The film would be greater but McClory overcooked it and there are a couple of scenes which make it officially not plausable in my view. The Aston's jet stream in the pts, having Bond get carved up nearly by Lippe and not even mentioning it to M (plus it's obviously shot on a race track, couldn't they have bought the use of a nice country road for a day or two) and then when Bond infiltrates the Spectre frogmen, just tagging along like you do.
As to on this Bond forum, I'd say it's really a polarizing film. From what I've seen in various threads on the film, either members find it to be on of the most epic, entertaining, grand-scope Bond movies, or, on the other hand, a boring, not-very-well-written film nowhere near the level of GF. I may be wrong but I rarely saw TB middle-ranked by members in the ranking film.
It seems that whether you like the underwater scenes or not is what makes you put the film at the top or at the bottom of your ranking.
There is a big 'fight' between GF and TB. Either people love GF and hate TB, or the other way around, or they are closely-ranked and keep switching places in people's ranking.
My sentiments exactly.
I do agree that based on the previous 20 movies, EON will lose their minds at some point and do another OTT movie. But I am confident it won't happen for Craig. I really think they will want to finally give a proper tenure-ending film. So they'll want to keep the quality at CR level until Craig leaves. I think the real worry should be about what happens next after Craig. As of now I don't see any candidate as Bond #7 that I find serious, and the most touted ones scare me a little bit.
@Getafix you seem to not like either SF or TB, right? So you are probably thinking YOLT is next for Bond 24?
It is very much right in the middle for me, along with YOLT. Those two films were for me a drop in quality compared to the first three (and OHMSS).
So as I can see, TB is not as polaring for you as to put it in your bottom ranked movies, but it is polarising for you next to GF and DN/FRWL as the first drop in quality in the franchise. So it seems either TB is a peak or a drop in quality.
I'm not a fan of TB. I don't hate it or anything. I just find it doesn't engage me. It looks great, the cast is mainly very good (although I don't think Largo is any great shakes) and the music sublime. Despite a lot of good elements, to me it is a lot less than the sum of those parts. The first three Bond films, and OHMSS are probably the gold standard for me.
I actually really like YOLT though. Call me perverse, but I do find it very entertaining and enjoyable. Nowhere near the first three in terms of quality, but an enjoyable template, that would be endlessly rehashed over the following decades, most successfully in TSWLM.
SF is, I think it's fair to say, not one of my favourites. There is simply nothing much in it to draw me back. I want to like it but for me personally it is charmless and largely devoid of the special magic something that makes a great Bond movie. But it's far from being the worst, or even close to the worst in the series.
Any way, I doubt Mendes is about to make a YOLT. I expect it will be another 'thematic' movie with some central core themes as in SF. I am totally fine with that as long as they don't completely override plot and logic. Just really hoping there is a good strong narrative at the heart of B24.
May be SF is a bit like TB for me, although I would rather watch TB. Broken down into elements I can see there are good things about it, but taken as a whole, it just doesn't hang together for me. Feels like a like a sort of unsuccesful collage.
The Bond films are funny like that. You can have one that on paper is all serious and has all these great people working on it, but the actual film is just lacking something. And then films that perhaps shouldn't work, like YOLT and OP, just do.
That's my rather underdeveloped theory any way. I just talking on a pure entertainment level here, and what works for me.
And I can see what you mean about YOLT but I found severe pacing issues throughout the film, especially during the wedding scene. Maybe I feel about it what you feel about TB's underwater sequences. And I hated Connery in YOLT, it's like he forgot about his great acting in the previous 4 films and was just there for the paycheck.
It's a beautiful film with beautiful women beautiful cinematography and beautiful locations. It's colorful, thrilling, and has perhaps the best score of the entire series.
Now, I'm never one to get into these sorts of arguments on here as no one ever convinces anyone of anything. Instead, I'm just leaving my two cents. I find Thunderball to be cinematic Bond, with mixes of Fleming, at its best.
edit: While I enjoy You Only Live Twice very much Connery's performance is visibly weaker than the 4 outstanding turns before it. I think YOLT is, overall, a very good movie but I maintain that the series peaks with TB in the "Golden Age."